Sony very famously scheduled the PS2 launch in Japan to happen right after exams - so schools would finish for the year and exams are over and a shiny new PS2 for you the next day.

Thats a ...... weirdly.... responsible bit of corporate behavior. The Japanese are surprising people sometimes.

Eh.. not necessarily. Starfield was supposed to be a game of this scale, touted as another Skyrim or Fallout. And it went over like a lead balloon, and about a week later everyone shrugged and went back to Baldurs Gate. Though I'm not expecting this to fare as poorly, since Rockstar do not have the reputation for jank that Bethesda have

But more to the point, this is a console only release. I wont be playing it, cos its not on PC. I *will* be playing it when it releases for PC however.

I expected this to be worse.

DR scenarios that we rehearse do not (yet?) include drone attacks; at a bare minimum we'd need to physically relocate backup machines, which would also require adding rather large pipes we could dedicate to backup traffic. After that we'd probably need think about redundancy - drones can attack multiple sites at once. And after that, we'd need to think about multiregion setups for resiliency against flying bombs, not just overworked engineers.

That all starts getting expensive very quickly; I doubt Yandex did any of that. So maybe they just got lucky, or maybe they were clever, hard to tell.

Too bad it weren't worse. But drones are cheap and Ukraine is very competent and getting more so, so there's hope for a round II.

... it's the world's worst marketing to name your service "Fee" :D

(listens to my Generac spin up) ... ah ... lovely ...

Those of us that maintain/maintained *BSD has absolutely been contributing back to it. And so has most of the companies that have used code derived from it.

Your lack of understanding of the licenses and their economics shows through. I think you've been hanging out with copyleft FUD providers, since you're repeating copyleft FUD. Companies will contribute changes back to BSD codebases - just not always *all* changes. But more changes than if they instead got a source license for something else, like QNX or Windows. As a former BSD developer, my clear impression is that since the formation of Free/Net/OpenBSD the vast majority of relevant proprietary changes have been offered back to the open source projects. And by "relevant" I mean "changes that had a meaningful chance of being merged back into the mainline project".

Relevant changes not being merged back (e.g. that FreeBSD hasn't accepted the changes from MacOS) has typically been due to lack of review capacity rather than the changes not being offered.

Because he had been taken in by rms' propaganda about how the GPL increases freedom, as most of us was before we thought really really hard about it. Many haven't thought hard enough about it yet to change their minds.

This hides the cost of the GPL. A more appropriate formulation is

"If you want to force companies to give back all changes they make to your software at the cost of having them unable to make use of your software and contribute back at all in cases where they could only give back some of their changes, use the GPL."

I was a FreeBSD developer back in the day. I have worked for companies that made changes to open source software, both as the person doing those changes and in other situations where my team utilized open sourced code and other internal teams made modifications to it. My experience is that companies want to give back anything that is not strategic, and the changes they make to BSD-licensed code bases (really, all code bases) are mostly utilitarian rather than strategic. They want to give back for several pragmatic reasons: It avoids maintenance costs for their changes, it is good PR, their engineers feel good about doing it, and it creates a good relationship to the upstream project, meaning that if they need help, they're likely to get it.

In my experience companies contribute more to BSD/MIT licensed code bases than to GPLed codebases. It is very seldom that it would make sense for a company to make a change to a codebase under GPL and give it back and it would not have made sense to give it back under BSD/MIT. It may be different from individuals. Some individuals believe companies deriving from BSD/MIT-licensed code bases and don't give all their changes back are exploitative, and thus those individuals avoid working on BSD/MIT-licensed codebases.

Of course, if we convince people that companies working on BSD/MIT codebases is typically not exploitative, then the individual part will also impove.

"You can't just .. splutter ... use a drug and lose weight!! You have to SUFFER for your sins!"

Yes, because animations use animators ,not actors.

AI slop uses neither. No humans or art are involved. Hence why people who backed a crowd funded project to make art are pissed off that instead of art they got AI slop.

What actually is your point here?

Oh you'd be surprised. Back in my younger years I worked in the court technology group for the (west australian) DOJ and for a while I was detailed to the WA supreme court, and was a bit surprised to find that the Judges quarters had an absolutely epic collection of very expensive aged whiskeys and brandies, and those judges would be hitting that booze pretty hard between hearings. What was weird was , you'd have a judge with enough whiskey to kill an elephant in them, having a debate with a QC lawyer (queens court is, or was, the highest rank of lawyer in our legal system) over the finer point of some obscure metaphysics axiom in Kant's Prolegomena , or an arcane ruling in a 1500s court case in the UK or whatever and would usually utterly thrash the lawyer. If it was me I'd be slurring my words and demanding the lawyer meet me in the carpark for fisticuffs lol. Those old yodas are just wired differently.

This does seem to be a modern issue.

My folks where dirt poor, and while often dinner was just... scrambled eggs again... Mum was adamant we had to eat a balanced dinner with NO sugar or salt (back in the 1970s doctors where a bit more worried about salt than we are now. We largely think salt isn't the heart killer we thought it was back in the day, though added salt still isnt recomended for folks with high blood pressure), and junk food was very rare indeed.

With that said, we lived in rural Australia, so that might have been a very different upbringing to an urban American, even in the 1970s.

I will add one caveat regarding weight and elderly health.

While it IS true that nutrient restriction is correlated with longer lifespans (although you basically need to practically live a full starved life , cradle to grave, for this to be significant) , and of course in many metrics being a healthy weight is absolutely more healthier, in late life there is actually some value in being *slightly* overweight, because thin elders are more prone to hip injuries and other broken bones from falls , and a hip injury can be a death sentence if your old enough. Folks just .... don't recover well... So in geriatric cases having a bit of weight can actually be good for you. Not obese, just a little chonky padding to help cuishon falls. Beyond that, a bit of fat can actually be protective beyond about 70-75. But crucially, we dont actually know why. So one would presume that the key here is to stay thin until 70, at which point, it is useful then to put a few happy kilos on.

Mortality risk was lowest for overweight participants. The risk of death for overweight participants was 13% less than for normal-weight participants (hazard ratio (HR)=0.87, 95% CI=0.78â"0.94). The risk of death was similar for obese and normal-weight participants (HR=0.98, 95% CI=0.85â"1.11). Being sedentary doubled the mortality risk for women across all levels of BMI (HR=2.08, 95% CI=1.79â"2.41) but resulted in only a 28% greater risk for men (HR=1.28 (95% CI=1.14â"1.44).

There was a sample size of around 9000 participants, roughly 50/50 m/f

Reference:
Flicker, L., McCaul, K.A., Hankey, G.J., Jamrozik, K., Brown, W.J., Byles, J.E. and Almeida, O.P. (2010), Body Mass Index and Survival in Men and Women Aged 70 to 75. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 58: 234-241.
https://agsjournals.onlinelibr...

These drugs are handed out like candy today and now seeing more and more side effects. The world has truly changed in my lifetime. Almost nobody was overweight or obese when I was a kid and when you see old pictures.

So I was skeptical on this, as I certainly remember obese people when I was younger, and decided to do a dig on the stats. Turns out , in a rhetorically exaggerated way you are right.

Overweightness rose roughly from 50% of the population to 70% of the population in the US from 1990 to now. From 35% to 60% in the UK (Though it hasn't risen there in a decade) , and 35% to 62% in Australia, with the same plateau seen in australian data. Japan from 17% to 21%. South Korea from 17% to 37%. And so on.

The conclusions seem complex. The fastest growths seem to be in wealthy western countries, the wealthy asian countries have definitely seen growth but are still significantly lower. I can only conclude there that while people are still over-eating in wealthier asian countries, the diets are healthier and/or people are working out more. There is extremely high obesity in Samoa and pacific islander countries, but these are not recent phenomena and may be keyed to genetic adaptions in fishing people for whom having a bit of extra weight might confer some advantages, evolutionary speaking. I've long suspected human fattiness is a misfiring evolutionary measure to store nutrients in fat for the winter. In the Samoan case, that might not be misfiring at all.

Ah.... ADHD rant. Let me get back on track....

Overweightness is huge burden on the health system, and issues of food security and lifestyle might be making it increasingly harder for people to keep their weight down while simultaneously being bombarded with various perverse incentives to eat absolute trash. If someone in a poor neighborhood can only afford to feed his family nasty mcdonalds crap, then they are gonna eat that instead of a good healthy home cooked meal with an assortment of vegetables and non-preserved meats.

In this regard I think widespread GLP-1 is a good thing that folks are are using GLP-1s to get that weight down. So far other than these rare side effects, they are largely free of downsides except expense, are correlated with improved cardio health, reduction in sleep apnea (which might make a measurable dent in dementia cases), respiratory health, and all around fitness. And most importantly can deeply reduce the caseload of Type 2 Diabetes. In other words, if we can get the prices down, this will likely take a huge chunk out of the costs of maintaining an ageing populations impact on the health spending of society. And that benefits everyone.

If you've never had a boss like this -- a lazy narcissist -- you're lucky. But if you have, the pattern is familiar and unmistakable:

* Doesn't understand the issues.

* Doesn't do his homework.

* Believes he's a genius whose "gut" overrules people who do understand and do do their homework.

* Plays his subordinates off against one another.

* Highly susceptible to information from random sources: thing he saw on TV, or heard on the golf course.

* Not particularly fussed about contradicting himself because he doesn't care about being right, but does care about being in charge.

* The more chaotic he can make things, the more in charge he feels.

* Has a cynical view of the people he works for but has a genuine gift for flattery when it suits his purposes.

Once you've seen this up close it's really obvious when you come across it again. You can't *not* listen to a lazy narcissist boss because he absolutely will try the stupid shit he says he will. But you can't count on him either, because he has no commitment to anything other than how he looks and feels *right now*.